W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2003

Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-10-10

From: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:06:18 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <20559758.1065719163483.JavaMail.bwm@MCBRIDE-B-7>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

10:00:00 Fri Oct 10 2003 in America/New York duration 60 minutes

which is equivalent to
15:00:00 Fri Oct 10 2003 in Europe/London

Phone: +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim)#7332
irc: irc.w3.org #rdfcore

1: scribe - volunteer needed

Please could the minutes conform to:

2: Roll Call
regrets: FrankM

3: Review Agenda

4: Next telecon 17 Oct 2003 1000 Boston Time
Volunteer Scribe

5: Minutes of 03 Oct 2003 telecon as revised


6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

ACTION: 2003-08-29#2 danbri
to investigation production of script for fixing up internal references

ACTION: 20030919#6 em
Poke Michael concerning xmlsch-02

ACTION: 20030919#7 ericm
contact comm to get publication date

ACTION: 20030919#8 danbri
produce boiler plate for SOTD

ACTION: 20030926#7 bwm
link issue list to supporting documents (such as JJC I18N issue 

ACTION: 2003-10-03#1 jjc
continue NFC dicussion with I18N

ACTION: 2003-10-03#2 jjc
change concepts NFC MUST to SHOULD

ACTION: 2003-10-03#3 daveb
change syntax NFC MUST to SHOULD

ACTION: 2003-10-03#4 bwm
ensure last call comment disposition is up to date

ACTION: 2003-10-03#6 daveb
change rdf/xml syntax to allow nodeELement as root

ACTION: 2003-10-03#7 daveb
add test case to test allowing omitted rdf:RDF

ACTION: 2003-10-03#8 frankm
reflect optionality of  rdf:RDF in the primer

ACTION: 2003-10-03#10 ericm
produce boiler place for RDF LC2 SOTD template. If done earlier, editors will add document-specific bits.

ACTION: 2003-10-03#11 daveb
work with danbri to finish publishing script

ACTION: 2003-10-03#12 daveb
either work with jang to change the negative entailment test wording, or do it himself by monday 6th October

7: Status of Misc Actions

20030711#4  	danc  	to get a test case for pfps-09 into OWL test case doc

20030926#3  	DanC  	review jjc's revised I18N document in the context
                        of request to advance
20030926#4 	EricM 	review jeremy's document for inclusion in proposal
                        to advance

2003-10-03#5  	jjc  	check the w3c rdf validator handles omitted rdf:RDF

8: Publication Status
2003-10-03#9  	ericm  	chase other groups on the 'heads up list' re reviews for RDF LC2 WDs
Is the process getting easier?  Lessons for next time?

Last call announcement


9: Handling lc2 comments
Are there things we want to do differently this time?

- Issues will be tracked in the issues list per DanC's advice
- bwm to track comments and responses as before
- We are hoping that we are not going to get many *new* comments,
  so typical responses should be of the form:

  - a reference to a part of the spec that answers a question -
    - no explanation - just rtfm and request to confirm that this is ok 
    - this is a test of the clarity of the spec.
    We should expect folks to read the spec carefully.


  - we've considered that already - what we decided, a brief rationale and
    the usual request for acceptance.

- what is our policy on editorial clarification?  We can try to be
 accomodating and try to cover every possible misinterpretation that folks
 come up with, or we can expect folks to read the spec carefully, and if
 the answer is there already, we don't have to spell it out.  So far we have
 been pretty accomodating, but the more we change and the more we add, the
 more there is to go wrong.  The chair suggests we not be in a hurry to modify
 the text.

- I understand that WEBONT had the chairs triage all incoming comments and sent
  responses, i.e. only the chairs respond on rdf-comments.  Do we want to try
  something similar.

This agenda was produced by Jema, the Jena WG assistant, running on Jena 2
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2003 13:06:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:26 UTC